***I think the source of the problem you are having in understanding the potential of Dick's result is that you are not familiar with differential equations. Differential equations, in general, are notoriously difficult to solve. Moreover, unlike algebraic equations which I'm sure you are familiar with, solutions to differential equations are not numbers. Solutions to differential equations are functions. And, in many cases those functions are not simple either.***

I don't pretend to be an expert, but I consider your assumption to be totally unfounded. I am familiar with differential equations, but it has been awhile and won't submit to taking any tests at this point...

***Dick's equation is even more general. In fact Schroedinger's Equation is just one of the solutions to Dick's equation. So when I say that Dick's result can provide a new avenue of approach to science, I mean that people can begin to look for new solutions to his equation. There is every reason to believe that if a new solution were to be found, it could be every bit as fruitful as Schroedinger's, or Maxwell's, or Einstein's equations, all of which are solutions to Dick's.***

"There is every reason to believe" is a little strong when you have not even one example to show this as the case. I can't believe that a young cocky 20-year that Dick was at the time didn't just thirst to embarrass the people he had apparently almost outright contempt for (e.g., his thesis advisor, nobel prize winners, distinguished physicists, etc). I think it is better to deem success on someone when they have at least made a prediction, rather before they have done so. Okay, Dick says he has made predictions (this despite the fact that he has in the past denied he has made any predictions that would qualify his model as a scientific model), but he has not quantified those predictions that future experiments could conceivably verify or falsify. In other words, Dick has not stuck his head out, and for good reason I might add - you might be wrong if you do. That's a major fact that separates Dick from the esteemed scientists who created the equations that Dick has tried to reproduce via Monday morning quarterbacking techniques.

***Now you object, well why did Dick only pull out the already-known equations. I tried to tell you before, but I'll try again. Compared to finding a solution to a diff. eq., checking a candidate solution is vastly simpler. In other words, it's relatively easy to take Schroedinger's Equation and test to see if it is a solution to Dick's equation, but by comparison, it would be very difficult to find it with no previous clues.***

Paul, it is a disgrace to his training as a physicist that he claims any kind of success at this point. I would dare say that hundreds of physicists have developed their own pet theories and haven't published them simply because they do not have any postulated observables by which to claim if their pet theory was correct. Simply claiming success based on the fact that he has produced some of what has already been produced in physics is asinine reasoning. If Dick was that young and gave up at that point in his life based on only producing what had already been produced, then I can only assume that even he has not enough faith in his own work. I for one, would never give up on producing such theoretical observables that would validate my work to others. In fact, if Dick had spent even one half of his time that he spent trying to convince others of his work as he had in spending in finding new observables that science could measure for verification or falsification, then I would take my hat off to Dick. But, from everything that I know, I haven't seen much from Dick in any recent effort to find such conclusions. I can only conclude from this apparent lack of effort on his part that Dick is not as dedicated to his model as he pretends to be. He would rather give it to someone else and let them find something significant for science while he sits back and tries to obsorb the credit. In my book, if someone did pick up his work and did find something significant in terms of previously unknown science, then that person who put that effort in and achieved those results, that person is the person who deserves the credit for a major accomplishment. Not Dick. Dick would be your footnote in history by some historian of science (or a footnote in some popular book about the subject), but all the accolades would go to another - rightfully so.

***I tried to explain this to you once by comparing the difficulty of finding a factor of a large integer with the difficulty of testing a specific integer to see if it is a factor. To test it, all you need to do is divide and see if the remainder is zero. A grade school level task. But to find a factor of a large number is a task that is generally beyond human capability and even beyond the capability of most computers in a reasonable period of time. Now, what part of that did you not understand?***

Arguing by analogy is not effective as you agreed in your comments to Mark. The basis of your argument is faith in Dick and all you ask to me and everyone else for that matter is that we just believe Dick because he produced physics as it was known 35 years ago. Why don't you promote Frieden who at least has produced physics that is current as of today? Paul, Paul, Paul. There is an inherent fallacy with all of this kind of reasoning. It is the "Enquirer" version of physics. News is taken as true when it hasn't gone through the proper validation processes, and since the validation process produces news that's not exciting enough for some people, they turn to the "Enquirer". Dick is the "Enquirer" and he excites those who get bored with the slow and steady pace of science, and would rather believe in major discoveries even if means accepting crackpot science to do it. I'm sorry that you have joined this kind of company because you really are a bright and intelligent man despite what Dick says. I really think that if you felt true freedom to learn philosophy of science as it is currently being explored, that you would find such amazement in the philosophies that underlie science. As it is with Dick, you can only get caught up in false notions of what science is and therefore you spend your time trying to support that which is unsupportable: the view that science is replicatable beyond scientific means. It took humans thousands and millions of years to discover scientific methods, and it has taken humans thousands of years to ignore non-scientific methods. Many among us are still clinging to non-scientific means to make major discoveries in the field of science, and to this day no one (and I mean no one) has demonstrated any other way besides the current route pursued by science. Dick is an exception in your view, and like all the thousands and millions before him, he cannot show otherwise. That is always left to some other factor (e.g., we need people who understand it better), convenietly enough - that factor is always missing and the excuses are always given. Enough excuses please.